Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-20
DRUMMERS' TAX CASE.
Argument in the Stockton Case Begun
at Galveston The Petitioner Rests
on the Decision in Robbins Case.
ATTORNEY General Hogg Makes an Abs As
SAINT on the sCprems Court Finding,
Declaring 1t Unconstitutional.
Special to the Gazette,

argument in the noted habeas corpus
case Of R. c. Stockton, known as the
drummers' test case, was heard.
Judge Duncan opened for the petit
toner. He confined his argument to the
constitutional, or rather unconstitutional
feature of the case, to-wit, that the bust
ness and occupation of the Pc
titioner, Stockton, were within the
scope Of article l, section s, OF
the federal constitution which empowers
Congress alone to regulate commerce be-
tween states and with foreign countries.
The interstate character Of the business
created by Stockton was shown, and al
though numerous authorities were quoted
to the court, the attorney for the petit
toner practically rested his entire case
upon the celebrated decision OF
THE SUPREME COURT
Of the United States in the case OF Rob-
bins vs.. the Taxing District of Shelby
county, Tenn. The opinion of Justice
Bradley in that case was read at length
and attracted the closest attention of the
court. The ROBBINS case was nesrly
identical with the case at the bar with
one important exception-that it imposed
no tax or license upon travelling men or
drummers who represented firms residing
or having supply 6epots within said Tax
ing District, thus discriminating in favor
of it's own home merchants, whereas
the Texas law under which Petitioner
Stockton was arrested makes no discrim-
nation whstever, taxing all drummers
alike. In that csse the Supre me court
held that the business created by Robbins
was Interstate commerce aud the law
taxing his occupation was void and I'M
constitutional in its application to drum
mers representing foreign houses. The
doctrine is plainly laid down that If the
state ct Tennessee desires to tax drum
mers who represent merchants residing
and having their depCts in Tennessee, it
is lawful for it to do so, but it
CANNOT IMPOSE ANY TAX
upon drummers representing foreign or
outside firms. In expressing the opinion
of the United States Supreme court in
this case Justice Bradley enunciates the
legal principle that under the constitution
Interstate commerce cannot be taxed al
ALL"
The attorney for the petitioner then
read recent decision of the Court Of APP
peals Of Texas in the case Of ex parte as
mere from Harris county. This
decision he Characterized as sin
galaritY, case standing alone
by itself wherein superior court of
Texas undertakes to overrule the United
S stes Supreme court. He commendedit
to the attention of the court as legal Gu
r'osity. He also cited the more recent
decision of similar case by the Supreme
court of Louisiana. This was the case of
The Simmons Hardware Company of ST
Louis VS.. Mcguire, sheriff, etc, and was
cited to the court as having very impor-
tant bearing upon the case at the bar, in
as it recognized the authority of
the Supreme court of the United States
and ratified the decision of that court as
laid down in the r Jhbirs case.
In declaring the Louisiana law to be
onal, the Supreme court of
that state used the following language:
ION all questions ap erfaiIiDg to |
the construction OF provisions of the |
Uuited States constitution and the laws |
Of Congress, the decisions of the Supreme |
court are paramount in authority TO our |
OWN, and we regard it as our duty to |
follow them "
Judge Duncan's presentation OF the |
case had the close attention of the court |
md numerous members Of the bar.
Attorney General Hogg in his opening |
address on behalf of the state, after re-
erring to the decision Of the United States
supreme court in the Robbins |
,ase declared q man must bow to the
aw, but he has right to criticise the
aw, and he proceeded to thoroughly but
c1iticise the fudipg of
Justice Bradley and his colleagues. To
bis end he called attention to the fact
hat Chief Justice Waite and Justices
reid and Gray dissented from the
opinion of the court as laid
Town by Bradley, and he read the
bile dissenting opinion by Chief
Justice Waite. The Attorney General
aid great stress upon the views of the
thief Justice and made tellin. point
With the court. After citing other de-
isions by the superior court bearing in
irectlY upon the case, the Attorney
General made vigorous and
VERY ABLE ASSAULT
pon the finding of the Supreme court in
he Robbins case He read from the
Elementary textbooks, which were, he
aid, superior TO even the highest court
n the land. He quoted freely
rom Cooley on Taxation, wherein it is
eclsred: mo employment is abso
ltely exempt from taxation, and
II occupations may be taxed"
nd from Desty on Taxation to the effect
nat ga law imposing tax upon travelling
eTsons does not violate the constitu-
on " II, said the Attorney.Gen-
rel, the clause in the constitution
nder which the petitioner bases ,
is claims, applies to drummers, then the
CHS Of the state are interfered with
I'd infringed upon. Then has the stete =
0 right to enact law against counter
citing. Recurring to the decision
the Supreme court in the
1bbius case he said it was
in it's appearance. There is Y
lmetbing lurking there that needs ex-
1sing" The Supreme court, by its de
sion in that case, had undertaken 10 do z
hat
CONGRESS had OMITTED TO Do. t
Id what it alone mas Inc right to do. The
,vereign states, he declared, by virtue OF
eir reserved rights have the
,wer and the right to tax every
ans occupation. This was
ghtainherel {. Patriots were It's erchi-
cts, and 1t stands monument to their
dom. The case of Roboins is
eapon to wreck the sovereign rights
the states and TO attack It's revenues.
lstice Bradley's opinion in the Robbins d
Use covered more ground than the case q
He'd for. Previous decisions of the n